MagicLock vs SOURCEdefender — device-bound licensing vs encrypted loading
A factual comparison of MagicLock and SOURCEdefender: both encrypt Python source, but they answer different questions — confidentiality vs who is allowed to run it.
SOURCEdefender encrypts Python source files with AES and decrypts them transparently at import time — a clean, simple answer to "can someone read my .py files?". It deserves credit for making source encryption genuinely easy, and its time-limited scripts are a nice touch for demos. MagicLock and SOURCEdefender are the two most directly comparable tools on this list, because both encrypt rather than obfuscate — the difference is what happens after encryption.
What SOURCEdefender does well
- Straightforward AES encryption of
.pyefiles with transparent import — minimal setup, minimal concepts. - Time-limited scripts for expiring demos.
- A simple subscription and a small API surface — easy to adopt in an afternoon.
The different question each tool answers
Encrypting a file protects its confidentiality. But shipped software has a second question: which machines are allowed to turn that ciphertext back into a running program? A file that decrypts anywhere the loader runs protects reading, not running.
MagicLock binds each artifact to authorized devices: activation registers a machine's fingerprint, and decryption succeeds only there — verified fully offline at every run through a five-step gate (authenticity, validity, device, entitlement, freshness). Copy the artifact anywhere else and it stays ciphertext.
Side by side
| Capability | MagicLock | SOURCEdefender |
|---|---|---|
| Source encryption | Yes (.pya artifacts) | Yes (.pye files) |
| Device-bound licensing | Built in — artifacts refuse to decrypt on unauthorized machines | — |
| AI model / asset encryption | Per-device envelopes, in-memory decryption | — |
| Time-limited artifacts | Yes (--expires-in, --expires-at, --trial) | Yes |
| Remote control after shipping | Opt-in --web-gate kill switch | — |
| Native-compile tier | Yes (magiclock build) | — |
| Passphrase / portable modes | Yes (two-factor node-lock, portable keys) | — |
| Offline verification at run time | Yes — zero network | Runs locally |
Based on public documentation as of the date below — verify current capabilities at sourcedefender.co.uk.
When SOURCEdefender may fit better
- You need only confidentiality — keeping source unreadable in transit and at rest — and licensing is out of scope or handled elsewhere.
- You value the smallest possible concept count over device control.
When MagicLock fits better
- You need to control where code runs, not only whether it can be read — per-seat licensing enforced by encryption.
- You ship models or data assets that need the same per-device protection as the code.
- You want to be able to act after shipping — stop, restart, or permanently deny a specific artifact from a portal.
- You want a compiled tier for the hardest targets.
Both tools encrypt; MagicLock's premise is that for commercial software, who can run it is the question that matters. Try it free for 48 hours — start here.
Facts last verified 2026-08
Product names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Comparisons are based on public documentation; capabilities vary by version and edition — verify with each vendor for your use case.